Aug 10, 2026: The parent company of a North Louisiana newspaper has agreed to make major changes to a Shreveport Times article posted late last week about the alleged plans for AI in New Orleans 911.
This follows several days of demands by Orleans Parish Communications District (OPCD) for a retraction and modifications to story, specifically that: 1) The story should have been better researched, 2) the story contained major errors, 3) the story contained a poorly-worded, inflammatory headline, and 4) prior to publication, there should have been an attempt by the article’s author to contact OPCD about the subject matter of her story and the allegations it contained.
To be very clear: OPCD, the agency which administers New Orlens 911, is not replacing humans with AI, despite what was conveyed in the original Shreveport Times story entitled, “New Orleans will use AI to answer 911 calls instead of a human.” For several days, we’ve tried to communicate that fact to any live person at the Shreveport Times who would listen. The only response from the article’s author and editors has been radio silence.
Click here to view an archived copy of the original erroneous article.
Click here to view the updated article and headline from the Shreveport Times.
This morning, senior editors with USA Today, the parent company of the Shreveport Times, responded to our escalated demands for a review and retraction, and agreed to update the article to reflect OPCD’s requested changes and remove erroneous information within the piece. Attached to this release are PDFs of the full before-and-after versions of the published article. And in particular, the headline changes made today are:
Original headline: “New Orleans will use AI to answer 911 calls instead of a human.”
The modified headline: “New Orleans hoping limited AI use could speed response for emergencies.”
From the very first words of the original headline, the original article conveyed a false narrative that OPCD is planning to implement AI as a replacement of our hard-working, very human call-takers. That is simply false. And it is extremely unfortunate.
The original article, with its unfounded allegations, was quickly picked up by major bloggers and some national news platforms, most of whom took the article’s flawed headline and premise at face-value. These re-posters viewed the Times as a legitimate news outlet, despite the original headline representing the very worst (or very best, depending on one’s perspective) example of baseless “click-bait” content designed to drive online engagement without regard to the underlying, less scandalous actual facts of a story.
Mistakes sometimes do happen in journalism and news reporting. But in this case, the failure of the Shreveport Times to fact-check such an incredibly inflammatory story is irresponsible, unprofessional, and has worked to undermine the hard-earned trust of our stakeholders, employees, and those we serve.
We thank the editors of USA Today for acknowledging the issues with the article and for making our requested changes to the content and the former headline.